National Assembly Appeals Housing Levy Ruling at Supreme Court
The Speaker of the National Assembly on Tuesday filed an appeal at the Supreme Court, challenging the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal which upheld the High Court ruling temporarily halting the collection of the Housing Levy.
The move comes five days after President Ruto vowed to appeal the court decisions that slapped injunctions on the collection of the Housing Levy and deployment of Kenyan police to Haiti.
“Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E577 of 2023 (the “Appellants”), being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal (Hon. L. Achode, Hon. J. Mativo & Hon. M. Gachoka (CIA), JJ.A) delivered at Nairobi 26th January 2024, intend to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya against the whole of the said Ruling,” read part of the appeal notice.
Speaking in Igembe Central, Meru County on the same day of the ruling, the Head of State maintained that the court should have given the government enough time to establish laws that would actualize the levy.
ALSO READ:
- Raila Ally Breaks Silence After Ruto-Uhuru Meeting
- Gachagua Close Ally Karungo Wa Thang’wa Accepts Ruto’s CBS Award
- Gov’t to Release Ksh.32 Billion to Counties Next Week – DP Kindiki
- High Court Strikes Down Ruto-Raila 2023 IEBC Amendment Bill
- Kenya Water Towers Agency Dissolved: Government Moves to Streamline State Corporations
While delivering their ruling on January 26, the three-judge Appellate bench consisting of Justices Lydia Achode, John Mativo, and Mwaniki Gachoka ordered the government to stop collecting the levy as initially ordered by the High Court, citing public interest.
In its ruling, the court argued that it would be unfair to deduct the money as it could not predict its final verdict. If found unconstitutional, the process of refunding the money would complicate the case.
“The trial Court held that the Housing Levy was introduced without a legal framework. It also held that the levy was targeting a section of Kenyans. In our view, the public interest lies in awaiting the determination of the appeal.
“This is because if the stay sought is granted at this stage, should the appellate Court affirm the impugned decision, then some far-reaching decisions that will have been undertaken pursuant to the impugned laws may not be reversible. Public interest in our view tilts favor of not granting the stay or the suspension sought. Public interest tilts in favour awaiting the determination of the issues raised in the intended appeals,” the judges ruled.
“Public interest in our view tilts favour of in not granting the stay or the suspension sought. Public interest tilts in favour awaiting the determination of the issues raised in the intended appeals,” the judges ruled.”
National Assembly Appeals Housing Levy Ruling at Supreme Court
